After 5-Month Ban, Perplexity's AI Shopping Agent Gets Green Light from Court

The 9th Circuit's decision marks a watershed moment for agentic AI tools that can browse, shop, and transact on behalf of users. By overturning an injunction against Perplexity, the court affirmed that AI agents may not violate anti-hacking laws simply by automating user-authorized actions. For developers building autonomous systems that navigate the web independently, this ruling removes a chilling effect and may unlock a new wave of innovation in consumer-facing AI agents.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a preliminary injunction that barred Perplexity AI from deploying its agentic shopping tools on Amazon's platform. The decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has addressed whether AI agents acting on behalf of users can legally access online platforms under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The ruling is a significant blow to Amazon, which had argued that Perplexity's Comet browser and AI agent covertly accessed private customer accounts, posing security risks and violating its terms. The court found that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on its claim that Perplexity violated the CFAA, a federal anti-hacking statute, because the AI's actions were authorized by the users themselves.

“

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a preliminary injunction that barred Perplexity AI from deploying its agentic shopping tools on Amazon's platform.

Amazon sued Perplexity in November 2025, alleging that the startup's tools logged into users' Amazon accounts and placed orders on their behalf—bypassing Amazon's ad-heavy interface. Perplexity countered that the lawsuit was a "bald attempt" to block users from choosing how to shop, noting that AI agents "don't have eyeballs" to see Amazon's advertisements. In March 2026, a federal district judge in California granted Amazon a temporary injunction, finding "strong evidence" of a CFAA violation. However, the 9th Circuit reversed that ruling on August 4, 2026, siding with Perplexity's argument that user-authorized access does not constitute hacking.

This precedent-setting decision carries profound implications for the rapidly growing field of agentic AI—systems that can plan, reason, and execute tasks with limited human oversight. By affirming that automated tools acting with user consent may not breach platform terms alone, the court has opened the door for a wave of AI agents that browse, shop, and transact across the web. For e-commerce giants like Amazon, the ruling threatens to erode the "walled garden" model that forces shoppers through ad-supported interfaces, potentially reducing ad revenue and weakening control over the customer journey.

Legally, the decision clarifies the scope of the CFAA in an AI-driven era. The statute has long been a tool for companies to block unauthorized access, but courts have increasingly narrowed its application when users provide consent. The 9th Circuit's reasoning suggests that mere violation of a website's terms of service—without bypassing technical access barriers—does not constitute a CFAA offense, echoing prior rulings by other circuits. This limits Amazon's ability to use the CFAA as a weapon against AI agents and could shift the battleground to contract and unfair competition claims.